Standing Committee A

[Mr. Jonathan Sayeed in the Chair]

Vehicles (Crime) Bill

Clause 15 - Interpretation of part I

Amendment proposed [16 January]: No. 46, in page 8, line 16, leave out the word `substantial'.—[Mr. Bob Russell.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Charles Clarke: I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Sayeed. This has been a roller-coaster Committee, and it is absolutely delightful that you are presiding over our proceedings. I shall try to respond positively and constructively to helpful suggestions, and to consider the amendments that have been tabled. However, I am not willing to give time to insignificant and insubstantial interventions, so I appreciate the way in which you and Mr. O'Brien conduct our proceedings.
 The word ``substantial'' is important, as it defines the scope of the Bill. If we defined a written-off vehicle as one which is in need of only repair, not substantial repair, we would bring within Bill a new category of vehicle—one which may have only superficial or minor damage, such as the bumps and scrapes that can occur in regular life, but which an owner considers is not worth repairing. For example, if a car fails its MOT, its owner may decide not to carry out the necessary repairs, but to sell it to a garage for an arbitrary sum or to part-exchange it for a newer car. I am sure that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), with his family experience, can talk eloquently about that—but hopefully not at length. The garage would repair the car and sell it on. 
 By not using the word ``substantial'', we might catch many garages that occasionally buy cars that their owners write off ,or receive them in part-exchange for newer cars. We do not believe that such action has an air of criminality about it, and the amendment would add a burden to the business, about which we have not consulted. The purpose of the Bill is to bite specifically on motor salvage operators. A significant criminal element is taking advantage of the industry, but I emphasise that we have no evidence that the same can be said about garages that buy or receive in part-exchange cars that the owners do not believe are worth repairing. That is why the word ``substantial'' is important.

Bob Russell: The Minister has set out a reasoned case for the word ``substantial''. Does he agree, however, that it is open to various interpretations and therefore could be challenged?

Charles Clarke: As the hon. Member for Buckingham has said, we are lawmakers, trying to find the right words to express the law. However, the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) is right. Challenges can be made, and courts will have to make a judgment based ultimately on the intention of the law. To remove the word ``substantial'' would make the situation more open. For example, a second-hand dealer who took a slightly damaged car, repaired it and sold it on may consider that he might be covered by the Bill and want to receive legal advice. That would be a significant burden, so we consider that the word ``substantial'' should be in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Miller: The phrase ``written-off'' needs clarification. Clearly, my hon. Friend the Minister is right to say that people write off cars in different circumstances, and that removing the word ``substantial'' would create a risk. Does he intend the phrase to apply in all circumstances?
 There are three potential definitions. First, the vehicle may be written off by the owner because he cannot afford to keep it on the road. The vehicle may not be unroadworthy; it may simply need a new engine. He cannot afford to replace it, so he sells the vehicle to a scrap dealer. Secondly, the vehicle may be written off by the insurance company because the cost of the body repair is greater than the value of the vehicle. In those circumstances, it would be totally inappropriate to delete the word ``substantial'', because one could have an expensive vehicle for which the parts are, as is frequently the case, hard to find. The owner cannot replace them so, although the damage to the vehicle may be minor, he decides to scrap it. Some other person with access to those parts may choose to put the vehicle back on the road, however; the clause as drafted, including the word ``substantial'', would allow that person to do that. Thirdly, a vehicle may be written off by an insurance company after a professional judgment has been made that, irrespective of the vehicle's value, it could not safely be repaired to meet safety standards. That is the circumstance that causes a great deal of concern among road safety organisations. We must ensure that the Bill is totally clear about that definition. 
 Some things may change with time. For example, Howard Basford, a successful company in my constituency, does fantastically difficult repair jobs on cars on behalf of insurance companies, with professional jigs and tools that meet the manufacturer's original specifications. 
 Some of the other definitions may need to be altered over the course of time. I do not want to be pedantic, because one pedant on the Committee is enough, but the phrase ``mechanically propelled vehicle'' in line 5 is clearly intended to refer to the power units of the vehicle. There will be circumstances in the not too distant future when the power unit will not be of a mechanical nature. Are the Government satisfied with the definitions as they stand? Do they accept that some of them may have to be changed to meet circumstances, as technology evolves?

Charles Clarke: I fundamentally agree with my hon. Friend, who has set out the situation clearly. The first of the three categories to which he referred—a vehicle that has been written off by the owner—is dealt with by what I said earlier. It is clear that those circumstances are covered by the definition. The second category—a vehicle written off by the insurance company because of the assessment of costs—is explicitly included within the definition. The third category—a vehicle written off by an insurance company that has come to the judgment that the vehicle cannot safely be repaired—is, again, specifically included within the definition. I am happy to confirm that my hon. Friend's understanding of the matter is correct
 The issues that my hon. Friend reasonably and rightly raises concern road safety, but the Bill is not principally about that, although I think and I hope that there will be a knock-on effect, for the sake of the safety considerations that he has mentioned. The Bill is principally about who conducts the repairs in the circumstances that he mentioned; it is about the salvage companies. They are what we are trying to target. I hope that in the light of that, the hon. Member for Colchester will withdraw his amendment.

Bob Russell: I still feel that ``substantial'' is a word that could be open to challenge and misinterpretation, but in view of the Minister's assurances, which will be on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 - Notification by scrap metal dealers of destruction of motor vehicles

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 19, line 8, leave out `may' and insert `shall'.
 I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Sayeed, and we look forward to good constructive progress in the course of today's proceedings. Clause 34 concerns information requirements. Specifically, it requires notification by scrap metal dealers of the destruction of motor vehicles. My hon. Friends and I believe that the clause is inadequately drafted because it is permissive rather than prescriptive, and it seems to us that it should be prescriptive. 
 We are concerned about the extent of regulation, and the burgeoning phenomenon of delegated legislation across a wide field of public policy. We object to the fact that frequently, such regulations are not debated in the House. They can subsequently have an effect that was not anticipated, and would not have received the approval of hon. Members. That process should be arrested, and reversed wherever possible. 
 The proposal is curious in that it seems to contain hesitancy and uncertainty. It is not clear to us why the clause cannot be more robustly worded to give a clear indication of Government intent. As in so many other features of the Bill—[Interruption.]—despite the sedentary chuntering of he who should be silent, the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), the clause leaves open the possibility that the Secretary of State might do something, but equally admits of the possibility that he, or as the case may be, she, might not do something. There seems little point in having legislation—and, specifically, the clause—if it is not to be prescriptive. 
 After all, this is not a question of looking into the crystal ball; we can read the book. We know that there are to be notification requirements. We can readily anticipate the sorts of requirements that will need to be imposed, so it is not clear to me why the word should be ``may'' rather than ``shall''. The provision is in that sense similar to clause 8, on motor salvage operators. The owner must ensure that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is notified of the destruction of motor vehicles so that they may not be re-registered. Thus, in a sense, the measure is supposed to reduce crime. 
 I have read and re-read the clause several times, but it is not clear to me why it specifies that the Secretary of State ``may'' make regulations. Either the Government are committed to the reduction of vehicle crime or they are not. The Government say that they are. They have a ``challenging'' target. Challenging is a word in popular parlance, as you will have discovered, Mr. Sayeed—we have even found Labour Back Benchers using it themselves in debates.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman concedes that we have set a challenging target, but does he concede that we are achieving it?

John Bercow: That was a particularly unfortunate intervention, because the answer is no. The Minister would not want me to revisit the portion of my Second Reading speech that dealt with the attack on car crime, for it was a substantial portion, but I made it clear that the Government were a very long way from achieving their target. There was a reduction in vehicle crime of 0.5 per cent. last year, but the Minister is proud of his record as a distinguished mathematician, and he will be aware that even considering the figures on a compound basis, as we would be obliged to do, a 0.5 per cent. cut a year over five years does not a 30 per cent. reduction make, even by the standards of, and allowing for the flexibility deployed by, new Labour.
 I am sorry that the Minister made that intervention, and I believe that on reflection he will realise that it was not his finest hour. He can afford a few such slips, but not too many, as he aspires to be, and is likely to become, the leader of the Labour party, and we expect better from him. He is chewing on his spectacles; does he wish to intervene?

Charles Clarke: I confess that I do not have the figures in front of me, and did not when I made the intervention. I did not intend to pursue a Second Reading point. The hon. Gentleman's figures are not correct, and the record is substantially better than he suggests. I shall return to the figures later, in, perhaps, a more entertaining exchange.

John Bercow: I relish the possibility—indeed, the certain prospect, according to the Minister—of a joust about the figures. He will be advised by his army of bluestockings and other highbrows, and I shall depend for my intelligence on the figures that I used in the Second Reading debate. We shall see who emerges the stronger in consequence.
 Our amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to make such regulations, thereby ensuring that the DVLA was notified when vehicles were no longer in use. We believe that that would be effective in tackling crime, compared with the non-specific provision that the Government want to introduce, which will, more likely than not, prove relatively ineffective. I believe that the case has been made, and I would welcome other contributions. As I always say on such occasions, I look forward to the Minister's response with eager anticipation, bated breath and beads of sweat on my brow.

Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to see you back in the Chair, Mr. Sayeed. I should like to make a substantial but swift point about the amendment, to which I am delighted to have lent my support. To what extent does clause 34, as currently drafted or as amended by the proposed amendment, relate to motor cycles? A recurrent theme throughout the Bill is that motor bikes should be treated like any other vehicle, and the matter is a source of great anxiety to myself and my hon. Friends.

John Bercow: In making that important point, my hon. Friend will want to be aware that the Minister has displayed a whit of frailty. We do not hold that against him, as he is a human being, but it is clear, following her question, that he does not know the answer. He is browsing through the Bill—and now he is feverishly studying a useful piece of white paper that has wafted its way down to him. To the Minister's credit, even though he has great ambitions and a full diary, and we expect great things of him, he does not know everything and is willing to take advice. That is welcome.

Anne McIntosh: Frailty is, of course, a redeeming feature, and shows that the Minister, like the rest of us, is human.

John Bercow: Steady on.

Anne McIntosh: The fact that the Minister does not know the answer reinforces my point. I promoted the cause of motor bikes and the motor bike industry in my previous life as a Member of the European Parliament who took a great interest in transport matters. It worries me that the Government are trying to meet the anxieties of individuals who may unwittingly buy a ``rung'' car, if that is the correct term—but only a car. If the Bill is to succeed as we wish, it must encompass the entire industry. I would therefore wish it to include motor bikes and spare parts for motor bikes.

Charles Clarke: I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. Motor cycles are fully covered by the Bill, and the definition of motor vehicles throughout the Bill includes motor bikes. I was checking that—I thought that we had debated it previously—because, as always, as my advisers are of such high quality and so excellent, I prefer to give the Committee advised advice, rather than unadvised advice.

John Bercow: What is unadvised advice?

Charles Clarke: Unadvised advice is when I, as a Minister, advise the Committee, but have not been advised by my officials on the matter. Advised advice is when I advise the Committee having been advised by my officials. I prefer to give my advice advised rather than unadvised; all Ministers should prefer to do so.

Anne McIntosh: When we discussed the matter previously, did the Minister give us advised advice or unadvised advice?

Charles Clarke: It was advised advice. As it was advised advice, when I advised the advisers to the hon. Lady—

John Bercow: The Minister was well advised.

Charles Clarke: I certainly felt well advised in what I was doing. That is why I was slightly uncertain, as I thought that we had discussed the matter previously, and I wanted to double check. I am glad to reassure the Committee on the matter.
 The amendment would make the requirements in relation to scrap metal dealers inconsistent with those for salvage dealers. If the hon. Member for Buckingham looks at clause 8(1), he will see that the same terminology is used to maintain flexibility. His argument, which he is perfectly entitled to advance, is about whether that is right. Throughout the Bill, we have sought consistency in the approach to making regulations on such matters. 
 A more substantial reason is that we may not need such regulations. We need flexibility so that we can be sure that regulations made under the enacted Bill will dovetail—I hesitate to say this to the hon. Member for Buckingham, as it will set his hackles rising, although I know that his hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) will agree with us on the matter—with the requirements of the European Union directive on end-of-life vehicles, when it is implemented in 2002. The detail of the directive and how it is to be transposed into UK law has not yet been finalised, so we do not know for certain whether we will need a power to regulate in a different manner, or whether the directive will be sufficient. It is necessary to have the power—which is the reason for the word ``may''—although, depending on the final text of the EU directive, we will not necessarily use it.

John Bercow: That is alarming. We are being held in suspended animation because of a purported directive from the European Union, the final details of which, and the obligations flowing from which, are as yet unknown to the Minister. On the basis of what I can only describe as cluttering around the room in the dark with all the lights off, not knowing where the switch is, we are expected to tailor our legislation to what might be prescribed, in due course, by people whom we do not elect and cannot remove. Will the Minister confirm that?

Charles Clarke: I cannot confirm that, because I do not know the details of the theology of the hon. Gentleman's approach to the European Union. The fact is that we joined the European Union—the referendum in 1975 confirmed that. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman stands on membership of European Union. Does he think that we should withdraw from the EU? If not, we, as a member state, are bound, in many aspects of our law, by EU treaties. Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether he is explicitly in favour of this country withdrawing from the EU?

Jonathan Sayeed: Order. I ask the hon. Member for Buckingham not to do that.

Charles Clarke: The single market legislation of the early 1980s, which was passed by the Government of Baroness Thatcher, includes obligations to European institutions arising from decisions taken by the British Parliament. The directive that we are discussing is no different from any of the other directives on such matters, and for good reason, as consistency across the European Union on such issues is desirable.

Anne McIntosh: I find myself in the extraordinary position of speaking to assist the Minister. In a previous life, I practised European law in Brussels. A substantial amount of time has passed since I ceased to practise, and the article numbers of several treaties have been changed. Article 169 of the treaty states that under a directive, as opposed to a regulation, people involved in the national Administration—in this case, at the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—are responsible for drafting the provisions. Those are the same people who are giving the Minister the excellent advice that he is able to pass on to the Committee.
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said about the end-of-life directive—[Laughter.] The end-of-life vehicle directive, I mean. Now that we know more or less what the end game will be in respect of that directive, officials in the Minister's Department—or, more appropriately, the DETR or the DTI—should be able to advise the Minister of the exact contents of the provisions. Unfortunately, we did not have a stand part debate on clause 15—or, if we did, it was so short that I missed it—

Jonathan Sayeed: This is a rather long intervention.

Anne McIntosh: We are already allowing for prescribed regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. I find that extremely worrying.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Lady is experienced in matters of European law. I was not aware of her law practice but, as a former Member of the European Parliament, she understands the procedures exceptionally well—probably better than any other member of the Committee. The processes by which directives are transposed into and implemented in UK law are continually negotiated and debated. That is why we require the power to be able to make regulations as necessary, dependent on how the processes evolve. That is also why we do not want to insert the word ``shall'', as the amendment would require. Ultimately, it may not be necessary to make regulations.

John Bercow: I do not accept that for a moment. The Minister conceded, as a result of the challenge by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York, that the distinction between a directive and a regulation is that there is scope for flexibility in terms of transposition into UK law. He is now saying that because the Government have not yet got round to deciding exactly what the terms of that transposition should be, he wishes to confer upon himself and his colleagues maximum flexibility under the Bill.
 It is not satisfactory that because the Government have not made up their mind about the details of the directive—of which they have long been aware—they require the Committee to pass a vague, unspecific clause of uncertain effect. The Minister and his colleagues must get their skates on and decide on the terms of the transposition of the directive to allow the clause greater specificity.

Charles Clarke: This is becoming somewhat repetitive. I can help the hon. Gentleman by writing to him and to other members of the Committee with the final text of the directive. However, I cannot write to him with the detailed arrangements for the transposition of the directive—which leave some discretion to member states—because they are still under discussion. He is entitled to say that that should not be so—that the matter should not be considered by the industry concerned—but it is right to discuss the process by which the directive is transposed into UK law to ensure that it is done correctly. It is also right that we should allow ourselves the ability to make regulations under the Bill as required.
 Three possible positions can be taken: first, to deny the Government the right to lay regulations before the House at all, which would necessitate deleting the relevant subsection; secondly, to require the Government to lay regulations, which is the aim of the amendment; or, thirdly, to provide sufficient flexibility to consider the situation as it develops. As is usually the case, the provision of flexibility is the right way to proceed.

John Bercow: I would find the Minister's argument less constitutionally grating and offensive if, when the final form of the intended regulations were devised, the House were to be given the opportunity to debate them. The fact that the Government prefer the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure and that the House will be denied the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations causes me to be critical and quizzical. It is important to explain why I am unhappy, although I realise that the Minister disagrees with me and thinks that I have no good cause to be.

Charles Clarke: It is not that I think the hon. Gentleman does not have good cause, because there is always substance in arguments about how laws are made and the relationship between the European Union and here. His point is not trivial, silly, insignificant or insubstantial. However, we may have to agree to disagree—or to disagree to disagree. The DTI has 18 months from last October in which to transpose the directive, which is a routine period. The reason, which I expect him to support, is that when implementing EU directives, different national Governments take account of the situation in their own countries and consult with their industries. That takes time and directives cannot be implemented instantaneously.
 The hon. Gentleman made the familiar argument that Oppositions always make for the affirmative procedure instead of the negative procedure. We have already debated that and I shall not repeat what I have said previously. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing his amendment in the light of the clarification, if not assurance, that I have given.

John Bercow: Yes, I shall be happy to withdraw my amendment. The arguments have been rehearsed and I understand the Minister's position. I am not persuaded by his argument and I regret the degree of fealty towards the European Union that his position represents. The truth is that this morning he will not persuade me and I will not persuade him; he thinks that I am wrong and I know that he is wrong.I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Charles Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Sayeed. I notified you that I wanted to raise a point of order about our proceedings on Tuesday, for which we have now received Hansard. At column 146, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) said:
The Minister who laughs—
 laughing is not such a crime in politics— 
is the one who pressured the chief constable in my area not to supply me with information to that effect, which is a scandal—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 January 2001; c. 146.]
 That is a strong assertion and it is constitutionally improper to assert that the Minister with responsibility for the police could or would pressurise a chief constable to do anything, especially to refuse information to an elected Member of Parliament. It is totally untrue in every respect. Not only is it untrue that I pressured the chief constable, it is untrue that I had any communication or conversation with him at any time. The matter has not arisen between us and would not have done. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his assertion. 
 There was then an exchange, which concluded with Mr. O'Brien telling the hon. Gentleman: 
It would be in everyone's interest for him to withdraw the remark and consider it further
 I emphasise those last words— 
because it can be raised in some other forum.
 The hon. Gentleman replied: 
I will withdraw my remark out of respect for your request, Mr. O'Brien. —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 January 2001; c. 147.]
 That was out of respect for the office of the Chair, which you now occupy, Mr. Sayeed, not because his assertions were wrong, slanderous and libellous to me in my constitutional position. I now ask you formally, Mr. Sayeed, to request the hon. Member for Lichfield, who has had the opportunity to consider the situation further as Mr. O'Brien invited him to do, formally to withdraw his assertion that I put pressure on the chief constable of Staffordshire not to supply information to the hon. Member for Lichfield. That is what any hon. Member should do and I hope that the hon. Gentleman now does so.

Michael Fabricant: First, I draw the Committee's attention to our previous sitting when the Minister said:
I accept that the hon. Member for Lichfield formally withdrew his allegations about me in the Committee in response to your request, Mr. O'Brien.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 January 2001; c. 180.]
 I am not sure whether I can withdraw what I said twice, Mr. Sayeed.

Greg Pope: Withdraw properly, and apologise.

Charles Clarke: I made that comment in that way because the hon. Gentleman withdrew his allegations specifically out of respect for Mr. O'Brien's request. That is not satisfactory, because the withdrawal was made formally in response to the Chair. The hon. Gentleman should make an actual withdrawal of his comments about me and my conduct, and he should, in honour, place that on the record.

Michael Fabricant: Would it be in order, Mr. Sayeed, to ask the Minister a specific question before I take the matter further?

Charles Clarke: I have no objection, Mr. Sayeed.

Jonathan Sayeed: On this occasion, I shall permit it.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to you, Mr. Sayeed, because it may be helpful to the Committee and enable us to move on.
 The Minister will recall that, in a question to the Prime Minister some time ago, I quoted the final paragraph of a letter written to me by John Giffard, chief constable of Staffordshire. Did the Minister at any time, in a telephone conversation or in formal conversation with the chief constable, discover the content of that letter and that specific paragraph?

Charles Clarke: I am glad to say that I did not. I do not recall the exchange that the hon. Gentleman is describing, but I recall that he raised the matter at Prime Minister's questions. I have never discussed with the chief constable the detail of any letter between him and Members of Parliament in Staffordshire; nor have I sought to bring pressure to bear on any words or in any other direction. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have regular meetings with Staffordshire Members of Parliament and the chief constable, which the hon. Gentleman sometimes attends. We discuss openly the resource and other issues facing the force and what is happening in crime in the area. I welcome those discussions. However, I have never had discussions outside the context of those meetings on such issues and, specifically, I have never discussed the content of letters that the chief constable might have written to Members of Parliament in his area.

Michael Fabricant: MayI ask one final question, because our discussion is helpful and we are reaching a conclusion—[Interruption.] I am discussing the matter because the Minister raised it. If we can clarify it, it will be for the benefit of the Committee, as well as the Minister and me, who generally get on well.
 Further to my intial question, did the Minister discuss the letter in general, either with the chief constable or any of his staff?

Charles Clarke: No, again, I did not. That is not how I operate.
 I see that the hon. Gentleman is accepting what I have said, and I hope that he will respond to that in a moment. My relationship as a Minister with chief constables—and that of my predecessors of all parties in this office—has been to respect their independence. I encourage them to talk routinely to Members of Parliament in their police authority areas and to make that dialogue as constructive as possible. I encourage dialogue because it is good for Parliament and for the police, but I never have and never would suggest what form that dialogue should take or what information should or should not be given, because that would be improper. That is why I took such offence at the hon. Gentleman's assertion at column 146.

Michael Fabricant: Then it is clear that the information given to me was incorrect. I believe that the Minister is an honourable man and I do not believe that he would lie to the Committee or the House. On that basis, I withdraw my remarks.

Charles Clarke: I unequivocally accept that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking that approach, which has set the matter to rest as far as I am concerned. I do not want the issue standing on the record, and I am grateful for the way in which he has dealt with the matter.

Jonathan Sayeed: I thank the Minister.

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 81, in page 19, leave out lines 26 to 28.
 In keeping with the point that I made in relation to the previous amendment, lines 26 to 28 are permissive rather than prescriptive. However, by definition they permit future prescription, and because I am unclear about the merits of potential prescription, I have tabled what is, in a sense, a probing amendment. I want to tease from the Government the reason why they believe those lines to be indispensable to the efficacy of the clause. 
 I am not entirely sure, however, that the Minister will advise me on the purport, significance or justification of those lines. In fact, I am not entirely sure that I know what they mean. Will they enable the statutory instrument to give greater power to the Secretary of State so that he can make different provisions for different areas? How much power does the Secretary of State in fact want? In what way might differing circumstances and differences between operators require a variation in application of the information requirements for which the clause provides? The meaning of this provision is simply not clear, and for that reason we have tried to clarify the Government's intentions by tabling this probing amendment. 
 If the provision on notification is to apply, it should surely apply equally to all businesses in all areas. It is important for the clause to have a degree of predictability, symmetry and uniformity. Given that the DVLA is a national body, it ought to be able to rely on a standard service from scrap metal dealers. To that extent and for that reason, the Bill should be as prescriptive as possible. We need to know what the Home Secretary intends by this measure. I cannot believe that those lines were included lightly or without thought, but I am unsure what the thinking is. As far as we can see, there is no reason to retain this element of the clause, so we therefore propose that it be deleted. We are happy that the Secretary of State should have that power, and at this stage we are content that it should be exercised by statutory instrument. However, if it is to exist it should be exercised fully, and I am unclear how—or even whether—that will be achieved. 
 With regard to the question of indispensability, it is not clear that lines 26 to 28 are in fact indispensable, but if the Minister is to contend otherwise, so be it. I shall be all ears—an appropriate term in this context, given that the Minister has a fine pair himself. No doubt he will explain cogently the justification for potential differences in treatment and application.

Charles Clarke: The position is much the same as that relating to amendment No. 80. We want the flexibility to allow the Secretary of State, through regulations, to take account of different cases or areas, so that regulations made under this legislation will dovetail with the EU end-of-life vehicles directive on its implementation in 2002.
 As I have said, because the way in which this directive will be transposed into UK law has yet to be finalised in detail, we do not know for certain that the power will be needed, but it is sensible to have it in reserve. 
 I realise that the amendment was a probing amendment, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now withdraw it.

John Bercow: I will withdraw the amendment, although I am still not entirely content. What bothers me about much of the legislation that we debate, especially enabling clauses in Bills, is that we receive so little specific information or reassurance by example.
 In effect, the Minister is saying, ``We have to allow ourselves maximum flexibility by entertaining many different scenarios—that is reasonable and sensible, because we do not want to tie ourselves down.'' I would be more comfortable if he were able and willing to say, ``We need this provision because there could be a difference between business X and business Y in terms of size, location or something else.'' He has not been specific about differential application, and that lack of specificity makes me unhappy. The Minister is quivering with a purpose, and we wait to hear what it is.

Charles Clarke: I always act with a purpose, but it is not always shared by Opposition Members. If it would help the hon. Gentleman, when I send copies of the European directive, I will include in the letter any further clarifications that I can give about the kinds of circumstances that might be discovered.

John Bercow: The Minister's words cause a warm glow. I am encouraged, and without further ado I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 82, in page 19, line 33, leave out subsection (6).
 This is a procedural amendment. As the Minister knows, perhaps to his cost, we have already sought to ensure that any orders or regulations under the Bill may be made only after a draft has been laid before the House—they would be subject to the affirmative resolution and would have to be approved by Parliament. 
 I want those who attend to our proceedings to understand the significance of that point. If Parliament is to carry people with it and enjoy greater respect than it has been given in recent years, it is important that people should understand its functions and procedures. They should not wrongly think that this is merely an ``anorakish'' point, or a matter of pomp and circumstance, because it has a significant practical effect. We are talking about the difference between a procedure that allows parliamentary scrutiny and one that does not. 
 Even if regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, that does not necessarily allow great scrutiny or extensive debate. More often than not, it means that at a relatively late hour the House of Commons has an hour and a half to scrutinise and approve—or withhold approval from—a statutory instrument. Nevertheless, it is an important safety valve in terms of the operation of Parliament and of satisfying the principle that the Executive should be accountable to the legislature. 
 Subsection (6) of proposed new section 4A of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 assumes that the order will be made by negative resolution and will therefore apply unless it is annulled by the House. Conservative Members disagree with that, and I have taken this opportunity to reassert and expand upon our belief that orders and regulations should be laid before and debated by the House. The amendment would remove the presumption that orders will be introduced automatically without the approval of the House of Commons or the other place. 
 In this context, I must refer to a point that the Minister made at an earlier stage of our proceedings. When I argued that the House should debate such matters, he did not agree, and, in fairness, he explained why. He said, ``Oppositions always argue for these matters to be debated, but we must have a proportionate approach. In practice, we cannot debate all the regulations that the Government wish to commend to the House. If we did, we would never do anything else. On minor, uncontentious matters, it is more sensible to nod them through so that they can be speedily implemented, in the interests of the sector.'' I accept his argument, but I hope that he will accept that the requirement to debate many regulations imposes a discipline on the Government to ensure that those regulations are as watertight, effective and error-free as possible. 
 There is a balance to be struck, but if we were to pursue what I would describe as executive man's argument, there would be a reductio ad absurdum. No regulations would be debated by Parliament. That might satisfy Ministers' advisors, and perhaps it would satisfy Ministers who, having spent their careers on the Front Bench, are not attentive or sympathetic towards the rights of the House of Commons.

Greg Pope: What?

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman cavils from a sedentary position, but it was not a party political point. The Minister need not quibble and can rest content, because it was not a personal attack.
Mr. Charles Clarke rose—

John Bercow: I shall give way in a moment.

Charles Clarke: Why not now?

John Bercow: No—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hyndburn is getting frightfully excited. Why is he in such a frisky mood this morning? There is no justification for it, because I am developing a reasonable point. If he waits, he will hear me go on to say that this phenomenon happened under the previous Government as well, although it has got worse under this Government.
 It is tempting for Ministers to ram through regulations without debate, which means that they are strewn with errors that damage legitimate business. Those problems can be anticipated and prevented if Parliament has the opportunity to say, ``Wait. Look at line 12. What does this mean? Could it have an undesirable, unintended consequence?'' If the Minister denies that principle, it is unclear why he believes in parliamentary debate. I assume that he does believe in parliamentary debate, so I hope he will accept that it is more likely that regulations will be effective and contain fewer errors if we have had an opportunity to examine the details. I hope that he will respond sympathetically and constructively to that point.

Anne McIntosh: I enthusiastically endorse and support the amendment. Following the Minister's earlier remarks, and the implementation of the directive on end-of-life vehicles, there is a disturbing trend in the volume of statutory instruments associated with the Bill. If it were subsection (6) of proposed new section 4A of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 only, one might be minded to allow it to proceed. However, elsewhere in the Bill we have regulations prescribed by the Secretary of State that will be introduced some considerable time after the Committee has finished its consideration.

John Bercow: It occurs to me now that there is a practical and worthwhile illustration of the argument, which I neglected to offer to the Committee.
 Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why prior scrutiny by the House is important is that we have evidence from the 71 pages of A4 appertaining to the working time directive, and the 112 pages of A4 appertaining to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, of the damage that can flow from poorly drafted and inappropriate regulations—a point which Ministers, by their subsequent amendment of those regulations, have obviously accepted. Does my hon. Friend agree that if, when the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the regulations on the working time direction and the National Minimum Wage Bill had been properly scrutinised by the House instead of being laid before it the day before the summer recess, without debate, the problem that confronted the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) when he became Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would not have confronted him.

Anne McIntosh: My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester has such detailed knowledge of other regulations that I can only agree with him.

John Bercow: Buckingham.

Anne McIntosh: I apologise—but the hon. Member for Colchester is not paying attention anyway.

Bob Russell: Yes, I am. I am listening.

Anne McIntosh: I apologise again. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: I am glad that my hon. Friend is here. We are all glad that she is here.

Anne McIntosh: What my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham just said strengthens my point. Discussions in the Committee have already been curtailed by a stringent timetable, to which we humble Back Benchers were not privy, and so could not contribute, which is disappointing. It was something that the previous Administration, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), tried to stamp on. Clearly officials so enjoy what they are doing that they will not miss an opportunity to stretch the provisions of a Bill such as this through a statutory instrument. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is right and proper and appropriate that members of the Committee should have time, certainly before Third Reading, to consider in detail the relevant statutory instruments and other regulations, so that we can ensure that they are in keeping with what has been agreed in the short debate that we have been allowed.

Charles Clarke: First I shall make a technical point, which I do not emphasise. The resolution does not establish an affirmative resolution procedure; it simply deletes the negative. Therefore, it does not fulfil the purpose that the hon. Member for Buckingham intended. I do not say that in a critical spirit; it is important to debate the issue anyway.
 I sought to intervene because I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's general statement is right. I did not take his comments as personal or party political criticism: he was making a general point about the way in which Governments operate. There is no general rule, but all Governments try to ensure that Parliament is fully engaged in their deliberations. I also accept that for Parliament to debate regulations is a good way to improve the quality of legislation. That is why almost every piece of legislation that I have had anything to do with has been changed and modified through the process of parliamentary debate, because in that way legislation is improved. We can all think of pieces of legislation that would have benefited from that approach. I shall not embarrass the hon. Gentleman by citing a number that were passed under the Government of which he was a supporter. I am not making a party political point. It is generally true that it is right to debate these matters. 
 However, there is an important argument on the other side. If we are to develop a legislative structure in this country that can genuinely change with the change in society—we are living in a more rapidly changing time than ever before, economically, socially, politically and so on—secondary legislation is a good way to do that, and is not something that should be avoided at all costs at all times. Things change and move forward, and Governments should change and move forward. One of the problems that Governments have is being seen to be out of touch with movements taking place generally. One can always argue whether the procedure should be affirmative or negative at any given juncture, but I believe that secondary legislation is an intelligent way to proceed. In other Bills for which I have had responsibility, secondary legislation has often provided the basis for proper dialogue and discussion with all those interested and concerned before we move. I am not defensive on this subject—and I shall give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham before asking him to seek leave to withdraw his amendment.

John Bercow: I have tried to be as fair-minded as possible. My view is that there were far too many regulations under the previous Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York fairly draws attention to the efforts, herculean or otherwise, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley to tackle the problem. He did, belatedly, attempt to tackle it, but I have always thought that his achievement in that regard was exiguous. The present Government have made the position far worse.
 My position on this matter has been consistent all along. Before the Minister rushes to go on about my support for the previous Government—

Jonathan Sayeed: Brief interventions, please.

John Bercow: —of course in general terms I supported them, but I have strong reservations about their performance in this regard, which I have expressed before and will doubtless express again.

Charles Clarke: I know that you too, Mr. Sayeed, had specific reservations about many of the policies of the right hon. Member for Henley when he was Deputy Prime Minister.
 I urge the hon. Gentleman to seek leave to withdraw the amendment, first because it is defective, and secondly, because it is wrong.

John Bercow: I am prepared to concede that the amendment may be technically defective, although the argument in support of it is not, but I am not prepared to concede that it is wrong. It is certainly not wrong to make the attempt, and we have not had a remotely adequate, or even respectable, explanation from the Minister as to why the matters concerned should not be properly debated.
 I made the point, and it was right to do so, that some of the regulations are extensive. With the best will in the world, Sir Humphrey, and the products of Sir Humphrey, always want to make regulation as detailed, as all-encompassing, and, I sometimes fear, as burdensome as possible. That is the nature of the beast. 
 It is a well established fact—God knows how many times I have heard the point made—that there is a fundamental difference between our attitude in this country to regulation— especially to the incorporation of European directives and regulations—and that of our continental friends and partners. Their approach is to sign up to high-falutin declarations, apparently without the slightest intention of conforming to them. Our approach is always to sign up to, or even to instigate, regulation, and then, as a matter of pride, to apply it as zealously as possible. The trouble with that is that, although it may satisfy those who are busily drawing up the regulations and consuming vast forests of trees in the process, it does considerable damage to those affected by it. The Minister has not been able to gainsay the argument about the extensive, burdensome and flawed regulations made under the working time directive and the National Minimum Wage Act. 
 The simple fact of the matter is that those regulations constituted 71 pages of A4 in the case of the working time directive and, in the case of the Act, 112 pages of A4. They were shot through with holes. They were, to use the Minister's term, thoroughly defective and wrong. They were beginning to have damaging consequences, particularly for small businesses, which are directly affected by the Bill. Precisely because the Department of Trade and Industry made such a pig's ear of the process, at the start of 1999 the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North, had to revisit all those regulations and make them less burdensome. 
 The fact is that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool had made a complete mess of the matter. Either he was not aware that he had done so or he knew that he was storing up trouble, and that was why he chose to place the regulations before the House for the negative procedure just before the summer recess in July 1998. He presumably expected to be trotting on elsewhere before long. In fact he was trotting on somewhere else before long: he was trotting out of the Government. In view of the mess that he made of those regulations, there was every good reason why he should. 
 However, this is not an abstract speculation or a bald theory; we have concrete evidence that regulations have been flawed in the past. It is not impossible that they will continue to be flawed, but they are less likely to be if we can scrutinise them properly in advance. The Minister merely gives us the ritual line that one invariably encounters from Ministers in these circumstances—that we have to preserve flexibility, the provision is sensible, and there is nothing to worry about. He then advises that the amendment be withdrawn. 
 I will withdraw the amendment, for the simple reason that we have tabled other amendments, which we want to debate. However, I am not persuaded by what the Minister says, and he should at least be aware that there are two different and legitimate points of view on the subject. As I am keen to debate those other amendments, within the truncated timetable for consideration that we have been obliged to accept, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Access to certain motor insurance information

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 20, line 6, leave out
`such information of a particular description'
 and insert `specific aspects contained therein'.

Jonathan Sayeed: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 84, in page 20, line 8, after `the', insert `specific'.
 No. 85, in page 20, line 10, after first `the', insert `specific'. 
 No. 86, in page 20, line 11, after `disclosed', insert `to interested parties'.

John Bercow: The clause empowers the Secretary of State, although it does not require him, to issue regulations that provide the relevant information required to be
kept by regulations made by virtue of section 160(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to be made available to the Police Information Technology Organisation for use by constables.
 My hon. Friends and I are not altogether happy with the wording of the clause. Specifically, we are uncomfortable with the wording of subsection (2)(a), where reference is made to 
such information of a particular description.
 That is gloriously vague—that is Sir Humphrey incarnate.

Bob Russell: What?

John Bercow: Incarnate was the word that I deployed. One can imagine the official dreaming up something so gloriously vague. No one has any idea what
such information of a particular description
 actually is. It beggars belief that it cannot be specified now. Why can draft regulations not be laid in front of the Committee to render the debate meaningful, given that some members of the Committee actually want to engage in debate? 
 The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) has engaged vigorously in debate, but has trotted off elsewhere for extracurricular activities. The hon. Member for Colchester has contributed intelligently to debates, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield and for Vale of York. Periodic contributions have been made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller); I would not say that they were especially profound, but they have taken place from time to time, and we are grateful to hon. Gentleman for giving us the product of his lucubrations. 
 Several members of the Committee have simply not contributed at all, however. For example, we have not had a maiden contribution from the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), or from one of the brightest bulbs of the new Labour intake, the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). Unfortunately, the hon. Lady is not even here; goodness knows what she is up to. I take seriously my responsibilities to this Committee. I suspect that, whatever the hon. Lady is doing, she is not reflecting on subsection 2(a) of clause 35—but she should be, as should the hon. Member for Harrow, West. He has big problems, as he is about to be comprehensively thrashed by my good friend Mr. Daniel Finkelstein, the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Harrow, West. As the hon. Gentleman has a majority of only 1,240, he will be bundled out of the House, so he probably wants to savour his remaining moments. One way in which he could do that—and earn his spurs—would be to debate the merits, or otherwise, of our proposed amendment. 
 The clause deals with a provision to allow police access to a driving licence database so as to deter people from driving without a licence. That is an important matter, but serious issues of data protection are involved. There could be problems with human rights legislation, too. The clause is vague. The Minister's mantra is ``flexibility, flexibility, flexibility''. I prefer ``specificity'' and if Ministers introduce Bills, they should have decided what their proposals connote in practical terms. If the Minister wants to argue the cause of flexibility and has given some thought to the detail of the proposals—even if he has not reached a conclusion—he should be willing to issue draft regulations with the caveat, or health warning, that they are draft and open to discussion. 
 What is bizarre about the process—I have thought this ever since I was elected to the House nearly four years ago—is that we are often invited to debate and approve a shell. It is almost as though we are blindfolded. We are told about the general principles of a Bill, but we are not given the details. We are simply invited to accept from the Minister that because the intentions are good, so will the content be, and asked to rest assured on that basis. However, I am one of those awkward, cussed individuals—a frightful nuisance you might say, Mr. Sayeed, except that you are too polite to do so—who believes in debating matters in some detail. 
 Sometimes, Labour Back Benchers give the impression and even state that they do not want to take more time to debate matters, but believe that everything should be nodded through. That is not what Parliament is about. My anxiety is that I do not know what the ``information of a particular description'' is. The Minister ought to know that, and if he does, he should be happy to disclose to us what he has in mind. If he does not know, he jolly well ought to, because he is a Minister. Furthermore, he ought to know the details, particularly because he is a rising Minister, a busy Minister, an ambitious Minister and a Minister who is thought to be on the rise. A Minister in that position should protect his own back and be able to tell the Committee exactly what the Government have in mind. 
 It would helpful if the Minister who has the power to order the disclosure could tell us what would be disclosed. Later amendments refer to that same principle so I shall not adumbrate the arguments further. We are contending that the specific information may be disclosed, meaning that the disclosure of information must be open, transparent and revealing. It should be possible to know in advance precisely which details are to be disclosed to constables. If the affected parties do not know that, it would seem on the face of it that their rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 could be infringed. 
 Under our new procedures, Ministers are obliged to offer a declaration of compatibility in relation to all Bills. I am aware that the Government are convinced that this Bill is compatible with their obligations under the Human Rights Act. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that that is standard practice and that it accompanies all Bills. Obviously, Ministers are persuaded that their legislation does not conflict with our obligations, but they tend not to explain what the issues relating to human rights law might be or say why they are convinced that the contents of the Bill do not conflict with the requirements of the Act. It would be helpful if the Minister accepted that data protection was involved and that rights of individual citizens were at stake. I hope that he can explain why he is convinced that there is no threat to those rights. I make the point in my characteristically modest and understated fashion that I am not certain that the rights are contradicted, but I am concerned about the matter.

Andrew Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Bercow: I will give way. Who could resist the offer of an intelligent intervention from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston?

Andrew Miller: Which principle of the Data Protection Act 1998 does the hon. Gentleman believe may be at risk?

John Bercow: The principle at stake concerns people about whom information is kept on a register. They should be aware not only that information is kept about them, but of what that information is. My concern is that as the clause stands, people cannot rest secure on that point, which is precisely why I am arguing for the amendment. I emphasise that it is a probing amendment, as many of our amendments have been, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has already presented a powerful argument explaining why he is concerned with the broad content of clause 35. Clause 35 is 18 lines long, but is summarised well in the explanatory notes in only two lines:
 Clause 35 enables the police to have bulk access to an insurance industry database which will help them to detect people driving without insurance.
 The whole Committee will welcome that. However, I believe that the clause is dangerous as it stands, for all the reasons pointed out by my hon. Friend. Earlier, he said that we often debated shell clauses or Bills—in which positions are made in outline and are subsequently enforced in detail through secondary legislation. I would rather use the phrase ``a blank cheque''. I feel that legislators are increasingly being asked to write a blank cheque for the Government to fill in at a later date. That is a dangerous practice that should be curtailed.

John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, even if it is right for constables to be given access to information, before we give our assent to the clause, the Minister should tell us to whom those constables should be allowed to disclose the information that they have obtained? That is a basic matter of the satisfaction of inquiry and of the principle that human rights have not been offended.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend is right. It is not only a question of human rights. It also impacts on data protection, as my hon. Friend has already outlined. I wonder whether a high-tech solution is being suggested to a simple problem. In France and other countries where a similar problem exists and the police quite correctly wish to know whether a driver is insured, a system has operated successfully whereby a disc similar to a United Kingdom licence disc is displayed in the window, which shows whether that vehicle is insured. There is an argument against that—that the car, not the driver, is insured—yet the system seems to work adequately in other European countries. I am conscious that the present Government are of a particularly federal hue within the European Union, so I am surprised that they choose not to adopt that more simple solution to what is not a particularly complex question. My fear is the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: As my hon. Friend observes, which is why he was bursting into a peal of laughter, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York and I were engaged in what might be described as an under-the-table consultation. My hon. Friend has an extraordinary approach to consultation; I was sitting on my chair and she burrowed along the Bench and spoke to me from beneath me.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to hear that, as my hon. Friends seemed to be grovelling together on the floor rather than under the table. I assumed that it was an example of the camaraderie that occurs between people of the same party who are working together to improve a Bill. I am delighted to hear that it was a consultation, which, I am sure, was directly related to the Bill, and possibly to this very clause.
 The insertion of the words ``specific aspects contained therein'' protect the individual, who may fear that too much information will be given to police officers. Although we all support the work of police officers, and constables in particular, the fear of big brother is growing. We have already passed 1984 and are now in Stanley Kubrick's or Arthur C. Clarke's 2001. The power of computers makes possible a huge intrusion into the privacy of individuals. This straightforward amendment would make the clause more specific about the sort of information that may be made available. 
 What consideration did the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions give to a more simple way of solving the problem of determining whether a car is insured? Was the European model investigated? Did they consider the introduction of a simple insurance disc, which could be placed in the car window alongside the tax disc? The tax disc system is a long-standing one. If that possibility was considered and rejected, why was it rejected? 
 Does the Minister not believe that the broad scope of the clause presents a danger to the personal liberties of drivers? We must not forget that drivers feel victimised, not only because of the high cost of fuel, which may rise sharply in the next few weeks as a result of the recent OPEC decision, but because of congestion charging, motorway tolls and so on.

Charles Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, I ask him to take this opportunity to urge his friends in the oil cartels to put petrol prices down at the stations; it is they who are raising the prices.

Jonathan Sayeed: Order. I would like the hon. Gentleman not to answer that and to confine his remarks to the amendments in question.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Sayeed. I have no friends at all in any oil cartel—indeed, if such a cartel existed, it would be illegal, so I wonder whether I should raise a point of order about that. However, that might not be in order.
 Car drivers and motor bike riders feel themselves to be victimised by this Government. The broad scope of the clause will do nothing to mitigate their fears. 
 Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Pope.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Eleven o'clock till this day at half-past Two o'clock.